![]() That view – an innocence story is smarter than a failure of proof claim – is not one uniformly held. And while we all may extol the virtues of the protection of liberty that flows from the reasonable doubt standard, when the jury deliberation room closes there is also the awful responsibility engendered by the fear of crime, the avoidance of risk to others, and a concern of facing blame if a person who is acquitted subsequently harms another. Why? An argument of ‘they can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt’ may come across like a schoolyard taunt – my client might have done this, but they can’t prove it so you jurors have to play the game and let a potential criminal go free. ![]() It is conventional wisdom that a story of actual innocence – there was no crime, the wrong person is on trial, the accused acted in self-defense – is the preferred modality in criminal cases. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |